Expressing concern over misuse of Public Interest Litigation, the Supreme Court on Friday said it is high time to revisit the concept as court proceedings were being abused in the name of public interest for publicity and political gains.

A bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan got furious while hearing a petition seeking NIA/CBI probe into an incident of 2015 when a dais being prepared for the Prime Minister to address the public fell in Raipur in Chhattisgarh. The petitioner, Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party, is a registered political party and approached the Supreme Court after its plea was rejected by the HC which also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000.

Undeterred by the adverse order of HC, the petitioner moved the apex court for independent probe and also made the Prime Minister’s Office a party in the case. It is apparent that the dome in question, which was being erected after incurring a huge expenditure, was of low quality ... corrupt and illegal means were adopted by the officials of the state government and since it relates to the safety and security of the PM, this matter may be directed to be investigated, the petitioner said.

As it came up for hearing, the bench admonished the petitioner for filing frivolous petition to get political mileage and slapped a fine of Rs 1 lakh, to be deposited in the court. The court got enraged when the petitioner’s counsel started arguing the case on merit.

“Time has come when the court should revisit the concept of PIL. How can a political party file petition two years after the incident. It is an utter abuse of PIL for getting political mileage. How can a party have audacity to approach court with such frivolous petition. PIL is not meant for these things,” the bench said while imposing the cost on the petitioner.

In another case, the SC refused to entertain a PIL filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy challenging the Centre’s recent policy guidelines on grant of security clearances to companies, saying a PIL against a policy decision cannot be entertained.

A bench comprising CJI Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said the PIL jurisdiction is “meant for the poor”.

PIL was a revolutionary concept aimed at “extending its long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard”. This led to the dismantling of the traditional concept of locus standi and the court could be approached by any person.